<<As for ERF I bought in at the beginning. Added to frequently over the many years since....as low as near $12 a unit a few years back. With a unit price now of around $27. Yeah I guess that really is BAD !!!!!!.>>
Ah, the magic of dollar cost averaging, where would we be without it? Actually I can tell you exactly where - not very happy!!!
----- Further on in my previous posting I explained a little of my strategy. Its further explained in my further past postings. Its not DCA. Its to accumulate on the lows over time (long time) lowering ones cost base. Following a specific math model. Regression analysis on past trading data. Your comparing apples to oranges here. And the comparison is completely wrong. Seems you need the simple lesson. DCA means you invest a set amount at set times. Buying at lows and buying at highs irregardless. I dont do that as I have said over the years posting here. -------
For all your bleating about <<the DATA the INFO?or near 20 years of data to look at>>, presumably found at your mysterious <<server and its contents>> that people wait in line to get at,
----- Thats all been documented in the past postings here in this forum. Whether you wish to believe that or not is up to you. And is of no consequence to me or the others that make use of it. ----------
and with your <<several tens of thousands of units>> in Enerplus alone, you obviously are a very rich fool who doesn?t need to count a lot.
------ Too bad you find it necessary to respond to that bit of info with nothing more than name calling. Such previous resorts to name calling from others in past past postings show only one thing. A lack in solid facts that pertain to what it is I have done and am doing given my strategy. You said your parents had bad results with ERF. You still have not shown I have had similar bad results. You only claim one who DCA would have. Then quite simply since I do not do that ,DCA, my results are not bad. --------
For the record: Enerplus is by far the oldest Canadian O&G Trust. It was originally ?incorporated as 334176 Alberta Ltd. on August 16, 1985, changed its name to Enerplus Resources Corporation on December 9, 1985? and went public at $10 in April 1986. Had you bought it then, could count and keep records ? obviously big Ifs ? you would know that:
1) The original Enerplus, through all its permutation, will be 17 years old next month as a public entity.
2) From inception through to next Thursday you will have received $11.74 in distribution for each original unit.
3) Each of your original $10 units is now worth $4.59 adjusted for reverse stock splits.
----- All these facts and they have no bearing at all or very little on my own situation. Quite simply since I have accumulated over the many years. Lowering my cost base. The effect of those original units is very small. That is because my total number of units (now) is so very much greater than my original number (17 years ago). The simplest of math facts like that just elude you. Thats quite the shame. -------
Given that at it?s all-time closing low of $12 per unit on Dec.14th, 1998, you would have been down 80% on your original investment,
----- Once again that original investment as I described above is of little consequence. What is of consequence is what my average cost is. These point in time snippets that dont correspond to what I have done prove nothing. Nothing but your lack of the most basic investing knowledge -----
you ought to be congratulated on your courage to pick up more around that level,
------ Not courage at all just following a simple historically proven trading pattern (lows to highs to lows back to highs again for the units price over time) with a real math strategy ------
but don?t confuse your brilliant market timing with the subject vehicle?s good performance.
------ Once again you said your parents had bad results. I explained what I did and my good results. As with all investing its not the investment. Its how one plays the investment that counts -------
Any long bond, including the safest, (US 30-year Treasuries, for example, paid over 9% in early ?86) would have soundly beaten the Enerplus distributions over the years and appreciated significantly in value rather than giving you a 54.1% loss on the original ?86 investment.
---- Once again your talking about the original investment. And that means nothing or very little to me and what I have done. And what others here have learned to do themselves following it over the years I have told of it. So that loss isnt my loss. My lowering of my cost base has ensured that. PERIOD. ----------
<<Quite simply looking at 4 years of data concerning the trusts and saying that that shows a complete picture of the trusts is nonsense. Further nonsense to that would be basing ones investing decisions on such a small sampling of all that is available.>>
I never suggested any such thing!!! In fact, as I tried to demonstrate above (since you failed to produce a single piece of that <<longer term data which shows things so much better>> other than your brilliant purchase near the lows), longer-term data can be very informative indeed.
----- I have provided much better I have provided my sources. Once again the publications from the Financial Post Datagroup. The annual reports. And where to go abouts finding these. Something you conveinently leave out. Lies and misinformation like this dont get your point across or help it one bit. And further they surely dont disprove anything I have stated. What it does show is that you if you need to resort to them. Thats more a reflection on you and your claims --------
Anybody delving into it would see, for example, that the longer-term performance numbers cited in the ERF internalization NR are just as cherry-picked & promotional as your bunkum.
------- And the only thing your doing here is cherry picking yourself. And it really is a feeble attempt. You slam them for cherry picking then do it yourself only to come out to say at the end well for them it would have been respectable anyways. Thats not BAD as you had first claimed ------
They showed the 1 year return, which is fine, but based the 3-year return on the old Enerplus stock price (when everything else has been restated to reflect the Enermark reverse takeover ? a little $4.43/unit gain there), skipped the 5-year period completely, but chose to show the 10-year period - because at the end of 1992 Enerplus was at $15, near its previous lows. Had they gone back to the end of1989, (when the predecessor four series of units merged into one, and the point that marks the starting point of the historical distributions dada presented at their site), the total 13-year return would be 452.3%. Still very respectable, and a fabulous comeback from the early disaster years (different management BTW) but not nearly as impressive as the touted ten-year total return of 749.1 %?.
----- All this above bunk to say impressive but not nearly as impressive. Once again thats not BAD as you have claimed.-----
Finally?
<<When it comes to the discussion at hand on RLI (reserve life). The evidence is quite clear (from past annual reports) for the longest trusts (going back to mid 80's) they show similar RLI.>>
? and on that basis, I suppose, you duck LLCF?s genuine reserves question with a simplistic?
<<For me its not that grave of an issue. An issue to be sure but no more or less than any other. And what it comes down to is ,am I going to keep getting that high monthly income each and every month or not. I am. And that is all that is of concern to me -------à>
That just shows what a true simpleton you are and why the OilpatchUpdates site with its simply presented data (5-years? worth in the case of ERF, by the way, not 4 - ?98 to ?02 = 5 years) can be of such value even to a pompous amateur analyst like you.
------ Because it really is that simple. Its of little value (its a start as I said) because it leaves out the bigger picture the whole picture. And it fails to present that these kind of reserves numbers are no different than in longer past. The trusts did not go away and leave and stop paying out income after the initial years reserves would have been all gone. They are still going strong. Still doing what they have always done and will continue to do. As I said RLI is something to look at just like all else presented in the annual report. Its not to be taken as the PRIME. And to be acted on solely. This ties in with a discussion I had with another on the stockhouse board. A news release came out with a reserve write down concerning one of PGF's properties. That poster had said to dump PGF because it was about to collapse. For a $15 trust it fell afterward $0.40. At a fall of just $0.20. This person had said the big sell off was over. And people should now be buying. Well there was no big sell off. And selling and buying back would have been a complete waste of time. Since the costs of doing so would have eaten up all of the gains or worse. So that case proves that taking these single factors as PRIME FOCUS and basing ones investing decisions on them is an exercise in foolishness to say the least -------
---- And thanks for more of the same from you Lorne under a different alias -------------
It?s not the fact that RLI can be maintained that is in question here ? it is the cost at which it is done that should concern you. It is precisely this cost of replenishing reserves, mainly in the form of dilution, that affects YOUR share of the trust?s production on which your monthly distributions are based.
Here is a simple example: If you go to the dropdown menus at the top of the Profile Page stats and put in the years 2002 & 1998 side by side in the first 2 columns, you will see that at the end of 2002 ERF had 82.9 million units outstanding vs. the 18.5 million at the end of 1998. Being a clever fellow, you will no doubt be able to calculate from the other numbers there that even though the RLI (reserves life index) actually increased, on a per unit basis, proved reserves have decreased some 42 % over the same period. (From 6.023 to 3.477 barrels of oil equivalent, to be exact.) That is the cost of dilution.
Similarly, while the trust?s absolute production has gone up 129%, on a per unit (year-end O/S) basis, it has declined 49 %. Blinded by high commodity prices, which for a period of time can mask these declines, many people don?t pay much attention to this type of dilution either.
Since high income seems to be your chief interest, to put it all together and simplify it for you there?s a neat little item at the bottom of the left hand columns called Prod. Lev. - Boe/$1000. If you click on that term, it will take you to a definitions page where you will learn that the number that goes with it represents the number of Boe's of annual production a $1,000 investment buys you at the current share prices.
From that you could easily calculate what your income would be if?
Hell, the instructions are there below the definition and I am out of time.
Give it a try and you?ll see what a bit of thought and 5 years of data could tell you.
Check it out!!!
oilpatchupdates.com |
